Hardly a day passes without new challenges involving the life and the family in political and legislative realms, that hit the news throughout Europe. The latest include the Slovenian referendum of December 20 that rejected Parliament’s bill on gay marriage and adoption, and the law on civil unions between same-sex couples adopted in Greece. Miroslav Mikolasik, Slovakian physician, serving as MEP since 2004, has always been sensitive to issues in the field of bioethics, an acknowledged representative of pro-life movements at European level.
How do you view societal mobilization over the protection of life and the family in Slovakia, Croatia and Slovenia, that recently held referendums on these issues?
To give an example, my Country, Slovakia, organized the Pro-life World Congress in 1992, with the participation of Cardinal Aphonso López Trujillo from the Holy See and Slovakian Health minister Alojz Rakus. That initiative triggered a hot debate in the areas of life, medically assisted procreation, abortion, owing to the fact that the previous legislative framework was among the worst in the world in terms of the respect of life. Slovakia then adopted a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Unfortunately, a subsequent referendum on the problems of the family was invalidated. Croatia, and only recently also Slovenia, have held referendums that gave the green light to the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, a large number of European Countries – France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and even Spain – have already enforced extremely “liberal” laws regarding the family and the question of euthanasia.
What are your impressions on the debate regarding pro-life and pro-family questions at the level of European institutions?
The European Commission is lacking a pro-life position. It rejected the legitimate “One of Us” initiative signed by almost two million European citizens for the protection of the embryo.
A large number of regulations and directives submitted to the European Parliament contain proposals against life in their formulation. The European Parliament lacks a pro-life majority while the Council of Europe struggles against very similar trends.
What is the exact situation at the European Parliament?
On the occasion of the election of the European Parliament only one side of the situation emerged owing to the systematic presentation of candidates lacking pro-life values in Brussels and Strasbourg by member Countries.
Europe is growing selfish, atheistic, laicist, and dominated by consumerism.
For example, only four out of 13 candidates elected at the European Parliament in my country are pro-life activists. In other European Countries the percentage of pro-life MEPs is even smaller. How can we expect that the family and life prevail given this situation? It would take a miracle.
Can you see differences between Countries of Eastern and Western Europe in terms of approach, for example, to homosexual marriages?
Indeed, it could be said that in Western countries the secularization process – coupled by practical atheism – started at an earlier stage compared to Central and Eastern Countries.
In December – also thanks to your commitment – MEPs have rejected the recognition of surrogate motherhood. As a politician and a physician, how do you view this process?
I am happy and grateful that my amendment on surrogate motherhood, which condemns the practice of the exploitation of woman, with a clear stand in favor of the ban on the surrogacy trade of children, has been adopted. You don’t have to be a physician to understand that the current “commodification” of women and their bodies is a monstrosity.
How do you view the role of the Church in the formation of consciences in the field of the protection of life and the family?
The Catholic Church has a solid – scientifically grounded – teaching on the beginning of life. But priests do not address this teaching of the Church when speaking to the faithful, in fact they do so only rarely, and sometimes the message is not clearly conveyed. The faithful don’t study Church Magisterium and they don’t read the Catechism, proposed and written in a very modern language.
As a consequence citizens preserve relativistic views vis a vis these fundamental, crucial issues, and in many occasions their decisions follow the opposite direction of protection of life,
as in the case of abortion, the so-called abortion contraception, euthanasia. I commend Pope Francis for using the laudable expression of “human dignity” as many as eighteen times in his speech to the European Parliament on November 25 2014. The Church should follow him in his topical teachings and actions.
